Peter makes a very good recommendation when it comes to used glass. The old Nikon lenses are high quality, easily adaptable, and fully manual. Personally, I have been building a Leica R prime set and cannot recommend them enough if you are willing to hunt them down and spring for the few that are a bit more on the expensive side, but in my opinion, they truly are worth it. There are many options when it comes to vintage glass, however just be sure that the flange distance of the lens is equal to or larger than 44mm or you will lose infinity focus.

If you are looking for new glass though, it gets a little bit harder. Again you will be able to find a bunch of high quality Nikon, and even the Zeiss ZF lenses will offer you manual aperture and it will be the same Nikon to Canon adapter.

If you are looking for manual cine glass, look to the Samyang/Rokinon/Bower options that are out there. Very well priced and a lot of people seem to like them, including Marco. Unfortunately I can't speak to them personally as I have had no experience but Matthew Duclos writes a very interesting article on them here: http://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/35mm-f1-4-showdown/

Within the next week I plan to have a focal length/color match test of my Leica R primes on the BMCC and I will be posting results here if you are interested.

Still did not decide what to buy... I am leaning towards the MFT version at the moment.

I knw that on the BMCC ef because of the crop factor a 16 mm lens would be as if a 32 mm. Is this the same on the MFT version? Will a 16mm MFT lens be as a 32 mm, or is it different with the MFT version?

Another question that I cant find any info on as yet is:

Is there any difference in quality between a good MFT lens (on the mft bmcc) and a good ef lens (on a bmcc ef)? The comparing the raw footage that is.

Crop factor on both the MFT and EF versions is exactly the same. This is a function of the sensor size, not the mount itself as the only difference in the mount are the mount's physical specifications and the flange distance which effects back focus (infinity focus). Focal length however remains consistent as this is a property if the lens. The only thing that changes is the field of view but this is a function of the crop of the sensor size as compared to the 35mm standard.

In terms of the quality between the two mount standards, it is entirely the lens. Considering that the MFT is passive, you may want to use the Vogtlander 17.5 or 25 f.95. These are great lenses but regardless of speed they won't be better glass than Zeiss or Canon L or Leica on an EF in my opinion but they may be better than standard Canon or Sigma or Tamron on an EF. But the camera's possibilities in terms of the raw file is identical.

Just because the image circle of MFT lenses are optimized for a MFT sensor, and other lenses such as Canon L or Zeiss ZF have larger image circles optimized for full frame, that does not mean that their focal lengths are measured any differently. What matters here is how crop factor effects field of view, not focal lengths. These are two different measurements and the size of the image circle between the two standards does not effect these measurements.

Thnk u, lots of information... does not always make it easier to deside... haha.

OK, in plain English... If I unrstand u correctly the if I have a 16mm ef on a BMCC ef... and next to it a 16 mm mft on a BMCC MFT , the view is the same? When I see my image the cropping is the same...